mikekatz wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 3:16 pm
An
experienced non-dual state is not the rising of yourself into a higher plane with a broader view of reality. A non-dual state is an experience where egoity ends and there is just REALITY. Impossible to describe. But, no ego, no mind, no thought. Just experiencing. And returning back into a dual-state, after that, the ego and mind return and lock duality in.
To me, this is the difference between Cleric and Eugene, and their respective approaches / traditions. In Cleric’s view, the mind and Thinking are the way to break out of the non-dual. In Eugene’s view, mind and Thinking are tools of the dual domain and cannot ever reach the non-dual.
Mike, this is a very subtle subject. With "no ego, no mind, no thought. Just experiencing" I think you actually described the "I am nothing" stage, this is a practical stage towards the nondual realization which people normally go through (see my post
here). However, this is only an intermediate stage and it is important not to get stuck there. The next stage is "I am everything" where the Thinking-Willing (on the high cognition level) does function in full capacity operating with intuitive meanings but only in the nondual way where the discursive thoughts/meanings related to "self" do not occur. In the nondual traditions it is called "no mind" mode, where "mind" is meant as the egoic dualistic way of lower-order thinking, so "no-mind" does not mean a total absence of thinking, but only suspension of the egoic-dualistic layer of thinking. So, the above test (a test whether or not the thought/perception of "self" as a perceiver/doer is sill present) is the key test, while the degree of the functioning of Thinking in the nondual mode may vary depending on the stage of practice. Temporarily putting the active mode of thinking on hold as a stage of practice is indeed useful (at the "I am nothing" stage of practice) because it allows to experientially discover "just experiencing" as the ever-present aspect of Reality. But once that is achieved, the next stage is to engage in higher-cognition Thinking-Willing (without re-engaging in the perception of "self") while maintaining the awareness of the all-encompassing aspect of Experiencing. Basically, every perception, form or idea becomes equanimously and inseparably experienced with the same Awareness everywhere without perceiving a "self" as the center of such experiencing/awareness.
Really, if we look at our direct conscious experience when any phenomenon (idea/thought, form, feeling, perception etc) is experienced, its experiencing is inseparable from the phenomenon itself. We cannot say "here is a phenomenon, and here is separately its experiencing/awareness", they are the same "thing", there actually is no subject of experiencing (awareness or "that" which is aware) that is separate from an object of it, and there is no act of experiencing separate from the phenomenon. The experiencing of every phenomenon is immediate, intimate and inseparable from the phenomenon. So, the key is to realize that the presence of phenomena (thoughts, perceptions etc) does not "break" the nonduality of experiencing. The experiencing remains undivided and ever-present regardless of the presence or absence of any phenomena or spiritual activity. But we normally unconsciously superimpose an imagination-idea on top of this direct experience that there is a "self"-center separate from the phenomenon that is actually experiencing this phenomenon. That idea is a delusion but it is where the dualistic perception is rooted. Once this deluded idea is dissolved, the World of forms continues to unfold and the spiritual activity of Thinking can function freely in the nondual mode without being distorted through the delusion of "self"-center as the "experiencer" of the World.
So, there is indeed a controversy between Anthroposophists who advocate the active mode of Thinking on higher cognition and nondualists who advocate the "I am nothing" "no thinking, just experiencing" mode as the final state of realization. But this controversy resolves at the nondual stage of "I am everything".
“Where we”, who is this we?
“Image for ourselves”, who is ourselves?
“Our boundaries”, who is our?
“We creatively”, who is we?
“Our boundless first-person perspective”, who is our, and who is first-person?
“Our private property”, who is our
Unfortunately, our common human language is inherently dualistic and bears an implied subject-object split in its every sentence. We do not have another "nondual" language. So, the fact that someone uses the pronouns like "I, we, our" does not necessarily mean that they are speaking from a dualist perspective. Again, it is only the "test" on the presence of the "self-center" thought that shows what mode of cognition is actually engaged here. And even if the "self"-thought is not present, it is still possible to use the common language with pronouns with understanding that they relate to semi-autonomous individuated spiritual activities of the same One Consciousness, so "we" still exist/function as spiritual activities, but not as "entities" ("self"-centers of experiencing). This is exactly how Rupert Spira worded it: "a self is not an entity, it is an activity".